Where historical fact combined with fabrication (fiction) just presented a problem

As much as I hate to steamroller my own posts by double-posting (twice in the same day… truly, not among “best practices” in blogging), this story is just far more interesting than to just let it lay for a day. Call this an “historical memory watchdog” moment…

This situation with the book is telling in the way that others (especially public figures and Hollywood personalities) and other “things” that we see as acceptable influences, impact us… and what those influences do to our perceptions of the past and subsequent presentations of the past to others. Granted, Oprah didn’t know that the author of the work was mixing fact with fiction, but she sold it as all fact, because she believed it. What if the author didn’t admit to mixing fact with fiction? The story would go on and on, and Oprah would have been a great vessel to push that vessel from its chocks. Who would have ever know the difference if the fabrications were taken to the grave? So, how many other reflections upon the past have been influenced over time in the same way? Someone believes something, right or wrong, or mixed with rights and wrongs, and that one person conveys this “version” of history to others. Over time, the whole package is adopted as fact. It seems to be a prime example of how adopting the “if someone wants to believe history one way” philosophy can cause problems. Carefree and happy, believe what you will, but don’t presume to pass it along as fact until you make darn certain that what you spread is fact and not tainted, or even sprinkled, with fiction.

Fabricating a memoir or fabricating memory. There seems to be a striking parallel. The memoir deal, well… though it was wrong to do it, fabricating portions of the memoir paved the way to greater sales, especially with the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey. The fabrication of information to supplement historical facts… that’s another issue, but has happened and continues to happen. How many times, in the short history of the United States, have memories been fabricated or “supplemented” by fiction in order to make for just a better story overall? How many times do people today, who did not live in an historical timeframe, find pieces of information, and supplement it with materials that are out of context, incorrect, or outright lies, in order to make a better story? How many times has fact in history been supplemented with fiction for some sort of gain, either short-term or long-term?

Well, Robert. There’s a lot to consider here. Just one of those things to consider is how much weight we give to what we call “primary sources”. The fact of the matter is that everything is written with an agenda, and in the case of memoirs, is there anything more self serving and, therefore, biased? Fabrication is not always intentional, and is often in the eye of the beholder.

I hear so many CW authors gush about their use of these “eyewittness accounts” and deride “secondary sources” – I think one must consider, and evaluate, all sources of information.

I better quit now, before this turns into a stream of conciousness thing.

That’s an excellent point Harry. I think that we also have to scrutinize primary sources. Of course, different people at the same event remember things quite differently. One person’s perspective alone is just that and creates a bigger needs, to consider what was missed or what may have influenced perspective. In terms of memoirs, I find E.P. Alexander’s an interesting read. Wasn’t intended for publication, but just for family. So, we know he didn’t write it for public consumption, but what did he write and how did he write in consideration of the fact that his children would be the readers?

With Alexander, there are of course two memoirs (in addition to other writings), one meant for public consumption, the other not. Interstingly, Alexander was long quoted as signaling to Evans at BR1 “Look out for your left: you are turned.” These are the words he used in “Military Memoirs of a Confederate”. But, after the publication of “Fighting for the Confederacy”, which was meant for a less discerning readership, his words became quoted as “Look out for your left: you are flanked.” The words of course mean different things, but due to the popularity of the later published work, the latter phrase is the one that gets quoted more often nowadays. I think Alexander was probably right the first time when he said “turned”.

You know, I’ve got both memoirs, but never got around to really reading the one meant for public consumption. I know I referenced it many times when writing about artillery units, but that’s about typical for me. Usually, instead of reading, I reference like a mad-man. Good example of differences in the two works. I’d like to reread the first one and then the second to see if I can pick up on any other differences beyond tactical accounts, specifically how different he wrote for his children as opposed to how he wrote for the public.

Very thought-provoking post, Robert, and the ACW unfortunately has been subjected to this same fictionalization, both directly after the war (read: Jubal Early and the beginning of the Lost Cause mythology), and within our own lifetimes. On this latter point the works of father and son Shaara leap to mind. These fictionalized accounts of the war are among the most pervasive and consumed interpretations, be it on paper or on film.
The serious historian and teacher has a responsibility to identify these works and place them in their correct spot, which is on the fiction shelf, not the history shelf. One could easily re-assign heretofore “seminal” Civil War history books to the fiction shelf, especially those of Foote, and Freeman.
Why do I make this assertion? Because of these work’s failure to follow rigorous historical method, and this is where I would respond to Harry’s point about primary sources. There is no more valuable and important tool to the historian than primary data. Records that are written long after are tarnished by retrospection, and need to acknowledged as such.
I don’t mean secondary sources can’t be used, however, given the power that such retrospection and agenda has had in our current societal understanding of the Civil War through the Lost Cause mythology, I look at the use of secondary sources as a primary support for an hypothesis with some amount of concern.
On another note, I hope you have a Happy New Year! I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your blog this year and look forward to another year of thought-provoking and well-written posts!

Thanks Mark… and thanks for being a regularly reading and commenting. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the blog.

I agree with you in many of your remarks. Quick-rising historical fiction pieces that become so incredibly popular (such as Killer Angels… and subsequent works by Shaara’s son) dominate popular reflections of the past… and taint the stories that come forth from many of the readers. Ultimately, this is a major part of the reason why historians are forced to “unteach history” in order to effectively teach history.

I recently had a discussion with somebody about Shelby Foote. He asked me if I recommended Foote. I told him that Foote was a great storyteller, and he had won many awards, but I also clarified that a storyteller does not an historian make. I see Freeman on a different level than that of Foote, however. Nonetheless, he, like many traditionalists, are mired in their love of specific aspects and characters in history. I grew-up on Freeman and a few others, but there is a time where these works no longer dominate our understanding of a much more complex history than they present(ed).

I agree on the use of primary resources, but I think we should be careful to take what we read at face value. I do know, a few years ago, that I ran across a series of letters (written by a Confederate soldier), and while I thoroughly enjoyed them, after reading them, I realized that something was missing. I went back and reviewed them again, and found that I was correct… the absence of something (things that I had seen in letters of some other soldiers about passion toward “cause”) was actually more revealing than most of the content of the entire set. I think that might be missed by some others who might read the letters (hmm, sounds like an idea for another post).

Well, let’s not go crazy. I’m not saying that primary sources by participants are not important. What I am saying is that the effects of memory are much more than simply the passage of time. The effects of memory are immediate. Primary sources are slanted not only by the participant’s limited perspective, but also by their predispositions, there biases, their motivations in recording their experiences. Secondary sources are also important in helping to reconcile primary sources. To claim that they are somehow less or just plain not worthwhile is to condemn the practice of history itself. Because after all, that’s what historians produce.